Palczewski v Regional Court Warszaw Praga (Poland)

On an extradition appeal, evidence that does not contradict the warrant does not justify reopening the factual basis of the extradition decision. Article 8 family and private life considerations outweigh the public interest in extradition only where the consequences are exceptionally severe. Hardship to a partner, family disruption, employment, community ties and a blameless life in the United Kingdom will not ordinarily meet that threshold without additional compelling circumstances.

Karol Palczewski appealed against District Judge Evans’s decision of 28 March 2012 ordering his extradition to Poland in respect of an alleged attempted robbery. He sought an adjournment to investigate whether the Polish sentence was suspended rather than two years’ imprisonment. He also argued that extradition would unjustifiably interfere with his Article 8 rights, relying on his life, work and family connections in England. The issues were whether the adjournment had been rightly refused and whether the appellant’s circumstances made extradition disproportionate.

1. Adjournment and fresh evidence. The court admitted the additional evidence because the appeal challenged the refusal of an adjournment. The principle in Szombathely remained that a defendant should ordinarily put his case and supporting evidence before the District Judge, and that it may be too late to raise it on appeal.
2. The evidence did not contradict the warrant’s statement that a custodial sentence of two years had been imposed and remained unserved. The references to supervision by a probation officer did not establish that the warrant was mistaken. The adjournment had therefore been rightly refused.
3. Article 8. The appellant’s evidence was admitted and accepted for present purposes. His work, relationship, family connections, English language, community roots and return visits to Poland did not begin to establish an Article 8 case against extradition.
4. The Supreme Court’s decision in HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic of Genoa showed that delay and a new, blameless life could be significant where extradition would cause exceptionally severe harm to young children and other compelling circumstances existed. This case did not involve young children or comparable consequences.
5. Consistently with Gomes v Trinidad, Norris v United States and HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic of Genoa, family hardship and the inevitable wrench to family life outweighed the public interest in honouring extradition obligations only in cases with exceptionally severe consequences. That threshold was not met. The appeal was dismissed.

• District Judge: On 28 March 2012, District Judge Evans refused an adjournment and ordered the appellant’s extradition to Poland.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was dismissed. The refusal of an adjournment was upheld and the Article 8 challenge failed.